Commit Message

On 09/12/2018 14:21, Mark Thompson wrote:
> On 09/12/2018 13:54, Paul B Mahol wrote:>> On 12/9/18, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net> wrote:>>> On 09/12/2018 08:52, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:36:23AM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:26:41PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>>> This recovers state with #7374 linked sample.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work funded by Open Broadcast Systems.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>> --->>>>>>>>>> libavcodec/h264_refs.c | 2 +->>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>> index eaf965e43d..5645a203a7 100644>>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ int ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>> case MMCO_RESET:>>>>>>>>>> + default:>>>>>>>>>> while (h->short_ref_count) {>>>>>>>>>> remove_short(h, h->short_ref[0]->frame_num, 0);>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>> @@ -730,7 +731,6 @@ int ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>> for (j = 0; j < MAX_DELAYED_PIC_COUNT; j++)>>>>>>>>>> h->last_pocs[j] = INT_MIN;>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>> - default: assert(0);>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmco[i].opcode should not be invalid, its checked around the point>>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>>> this>>>>>>>>> array is filled.>>>>>>>>> unless there is something iam missing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are missing big time.>>>>>>>> If you think by "checked" about those nice asserts they are not>>>>>>>> enabled>>>>>>>> at>>>>>>>> all.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is check for invalid opcode, but stored invalid opcode is not>>>>>>> changed.>>>>>>>>>>>> Theres no question that we end with a invalid value in the struct, but>>>>>> that>>>>>> is not intended to be in there. You can see that this is not intended by>>>>>> simply looking at the variable that holds the number of entries, it is>>>>>> not written at all in this case.>>>>>>>>>>>> So for example if this code stores 5 correct looking mmcos and the 6th>>>>>> is>>>>>> invalid, 6 are in the array but the number of entries is just left where>>>>>> it>>>>>> was, that could be maybe 3 or 8 or 1. Just "defaulting out" the invalid>>>>>> value>>>>>> later doesnt feel ideal.>>>>>>>>>> Nope, mmco state is left in inconsistent state, and my patch fix it. As>>>>> you>>>>> provided nothing valuable to consider as alternative I will apply it.>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about converting any invalid mmco opcode to mmco reset and>>>> updating mmco size too?>>>> Currently mmco size is left in previous state.>>>>>> Don't invent a new RESET (= 5) operation - that type is special and its>>> presence implies other constraints which we probably don't want to think>>> about here (around frame_num in particular).>>>>>> I think END / truncating the list would be best option?>>>>>>> Nope, that would still put it into bad state. With your approach decoder does>> not recover from artifacts. Try sample from bug report #7374.> > Adding a spurious reset here throws away all previous reference frames, which will break the stream where it wouldn't otherwise be if the corrupted frame would have been bypassed for referencing. For example, in real-time cases with feedback a stream which has encountered errors can be recovered without an intra frame by referring to an older frame which still exists in the DPB.
Sample: <http://ixia.jkqxz.net/~mrt/ffmpeg/no-intra.264>. The bad frame here has frame_num 24, but we already hit an error before that point and the feedback about that makes frame_num 25 refer to LTRF 1 such that 24 is never used. (From a simulator rather than a real capture, because random bit errors are never where you want them.)
It doesn't exactly hit the original issue because the leftover MMCO count from the previous slice is not large enough. With:
to make sure the MMCO count is written with a high enough value it does. The decoder then loses sync after the inserted reset when that is present and so all frames are wrong, while without the reset sync is maintained and all errors are fixed within a few round trips.
- Mark

Comments

2018-12-10 23:41 GMT+01:00, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net>:
> On 09/12/2018 14:21, Mark Thompson wrote:>> On 09/12/2018 13:54, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>> On 12/9/18, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net> wrote:>>>> On 09/12/2018 08:52, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:36:23AM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:26:41PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> This recovers state with #7374 linked sample.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work funded by Open Broadcast Systems.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>>> --->>>>>>>>>>> libavcodec/h264_refs.c | 2 +->>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>> index eaf965e43d..5645a203a7 100644>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>> case MMCO_RESET:>>>>>>>>>>> + default:>>>>>>>>>>> while (h->short_ref_count) {>>>>>>>>>>> remove_short(h, h->short_ref[0]->frame_num, 0);>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -730,7 +731,6 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>> for (j = 0; j < MAX_DELAYED_PIC_COUNT; j++)>>>>>>>>>>> h->last_pocs[j] = INT_MIN;>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>> - default: assert(0);>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmco[i].opcode should not be invalid, its checked around the point>>>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>>>> this>>>>>>>>>> array is filled.>>>>>>>>>> unless there is something iam missing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are missing big time.>>>>>>>>> If you think by "checked" about those nice asserts they are not>>>>>>>>> enabled>>>>>>>>> at>>>>>>>>> all.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is check for invalid opcode, but stored invalid opcode is not>>>>>>>> changed.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theres no question that we end with a invalid value in the struct,>>>>>>> but>>>>>>> that>>>>>>> is not intended to be in there. You can see that this is not intended>>>>>>> by>>>>>>> simply looking at the variable that holds the number of entries, it>>>>>>> is>>>>>>> not written at all in this case.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So for example if this code stores 5 correct looking mmcos and the>>>>>>> 6th>>>>>>> is>>>>>>> invalid, 6 are in the array but the number of entries is just left>>>>>>> where>>>>>>> it>>>>>>> was, that could be maybe 3 or 8 or 1. Just "defaulting out" the>>>>>>> invalid>>>>>>> value>>>>>>> later doesnt feel ideal.>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, mmco state is left in inconsistent state, and my patch fix it.>>>>>> As>>>>>> you>>>>>> provided nothing valuable to consider as alternative I will apply it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about converting any invalid mmco opcode to mmco reset and>>>>> updating mmco size too?>>>>> Currently mmco size is left in previous state.>>>>>>>> Don't invent a new RESET (= 5) operation - that type is special and its>>>> presence implies other constraints which we probably don't want to think>>>> about here (around frame_num in particular).>>>>>>>> I think END / truncating the list would be best option?>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that would still put it into bad state. With your approach decoder>>> does>>> not recover from artifacts. Try sample from bug report #7374.>>>> Adding a spurious reset here throws away all previous reference frames,>> which will break the stream where it wouldn't otherwise be if the>> corrupted frame would have been bypassed for referencing. For example, in>> real-time cases with feedback a stream which has encountered errors can be>> recovered without an intra frame by referring to an older frame which>> still exists in the DPB.>> Sample: <http://ixia.jkqxz.net/~mrt/ffmpeg/no-intra.264>. The bad frame> here has frame_num 24, but we already hit an error before that point and the> feedback about that makes frame_num 25 refer to LTRF 1 such that 24 is never> used. (From a simulator rather than a real capture, because random bit> errors are never where you want them.)>> It doesn't exactly hit the original issue because the leftover MMCO count> from the previous slice is not large enough. With:>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c> index 5645a203a7..977b4ed12f 100644> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c> @@ -875,6 +875,7 @@ int ff_h264_decode_ref_pic_marking(H264SliceContext *sl,> GetBitContext *gb,> av_log(logctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,> "illegal memory management control operation> %d\n",> opcode);> + sl->nb_mmco = i + 1;> return -1;> }> if (opcode == MMCO_END)>> to make sure the MMCO count is written with a high enough value it does.> The decoder then loses sync after the inserted reset when that is present> and so all frames are wrong, while without the reset sync is maintained and> all errors are fixed within a few round trips.
Your change doesn't fix the issue in question...
Carl Eugen

On 12/11/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2018-12-10 23:41 GMT+01:00, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net>:>> On 09/12/2018 14:21, Mark Thompson wrote:>>> On 09/12/2018 13:54, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>> On 12/9/18, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net> wrote:>>>>> On 09/12/2018 08:52, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:36:23AM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:26:41PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> This recovers state with #7374 linked sample.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work funded by Open Broadcast Systems.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>>>> --->>>>>>>>>>>> libavcodec/h264_refs.c | 2 +->>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>> index eaf965e43d..5645a203a7 100644>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>>> case MMCO_RESET:>>>>>>>>>>>> + default:>>>>>>>>>>>> while (h->short_ref_count) {>>>>>>>>>>>> remove_short(h, h->short_ref[0]->frame_num, 0);>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -730,7 +731,6 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>>> for (j = 0; j < MAX_DELAYED_PIC_COUNT; j++)>>>>>>>>>>>> h->last_pocs[j] = INT_MIN;>>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>>> - default: assert(0);>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmco[i].opcode should not be invalid, its checked around the>>>>>>>>>>> point>>>>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>>>>> this>>>>>>>>>>> array is filled.>>>>>>>>>>> unless there is something iam missing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are missing big time.>>>>>>>>>> If you think by "checked" about those nice asserts they are not>>>>>>>>>> enabled>>>>>>>>>> at>>>>>>>>>> all.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is check for invalid opcode, but stored invalid opcode is not>>>>>>>>> changed.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theres no question that we end with a invalid value in the struct,>>>>>>>> but>>>>>>>> that>>>>>>>> is not intended to be in there. You can see that this is not>>>>>>>> intended>>>>>>>> by>>>>>>>> simply looking at the variable that holds the number of entries, it>>>>>>>> is>>>>>>>> not written at all in this case.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So for example if this code stores 5 correct looking mmcos and the>>>>>>>> 6th>>>>>>>> is>>>>>>>> invalid, 6 are in the array but the number of entries is just left>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>> it>>>>>>>> was, that could be maybe 3 or 8 or 1. Just "defaulting out" the>>>>>>>> invalid>>>>>>>> value>>>>>>>> later doesnt feel ideal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, mmco state is left in inconsistent state, and my patch fix it.>>>>>>> As>>>>>>> you>>>>>>> provided nothing valuable to consider as alternative I will apply it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about converting any invalid mmco opcode to mmco reset and>>>>>> updating mmco size too?>>>>>> Currently mmco size is left in previous state.>>>>>>>>>> Don't invent a new RESET (= 5) operation - that type is special and its>>>>> presence implies other constraints which we probably don't want to>>>>> think>>>>> about here (around frame_num in particular).>>>>>>>>>> I think END / truncating the list would be best option?>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that would still put it into bad state. With your approach decoder>>>> does>>>> not recover from artifacts. Try sample from bug report #7374.>>>>>> Adding a spurious reset here throws away all previous reference frames,>>> which will break the stream where it wouldn't otherwise be if the>>> corrupted frame would have been bypassed for referencing. For example,>>> in>>> real-time cases with feedback a stream which has encountered errors can>>> be>>> recovered without an intra frame by referring to an older frame which>>> still exists in the DPB.>>>> Sample: <http://ixia.jkqxz.net/~mrt/ffmpeg/no-intra.264>. The bad frame>> here has frame_num 24, but we already hit an error before that point and>> the>> feedback about that makes frame_num 25 refer to LTRF 1 such that 24 is>> never>> used. (From a simulator rather than a real capture, because random bit>> errors are never where you want them.)>>>> It doesn't exactly hit the original issue because the leftover MMCO count>> from the previous slice is not large enough. With:>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>> index 5645a203a7..977b4ed12f 100644>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>> @@ -875,6 +875,7 @@ int ff_h264_decode_ref_pic_marking(H264SliceContext>> *sl,>> GetBitContext *gb,>> av_log(logctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,>> "illegal memory management control operation>> %d\n",>> opcode);>> + sl->nb_mmco = i + 1;>> return -1;>> }>> if (opcode == MMCO_END)>>>> to make sure the MMCO count is written with a high enough value it does.>> The decoder then loses sync after the inserted reset when that is present>> and so all frames are wrong, while without the reset sync is maintained>> and>> all errors are fixed within a few round trips.>> Your change doesn't fix the issue in question...
sl->nb_mmco cant be set to i + 1, as that would still pass invalid value later,
you probably meant to set it to i.

On 11/12/2018 14:28, Paul B Mahol wrote:
> On 12/11/18, Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceffmpeg@gmail.com> wrote:>> 2018-12-10 23:41 GMT+01:00, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net>:>>> On 09/12/2018 14:21, Mark Thompson wrote:>>>> On 09/12/2018 13:54, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>> On 12/9/18, Mark Thompson <sw@jkqxz.net> wrote:>>>>>> On 09/12/2018 08:52, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 10:36:23AM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/7/18, Michael Niedermayer <michael@niedermayer.cc> wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 06, 2018 at 03:26:41PM +0100, Paul B Mahol wrote:>>>>>>>>>>>>> This recovers state with #7374 linked sample.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Work funded by Open Broadcast Systems.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Paul B Mahol <onemda@gmail.com>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --->>>>>>>>>>>>> libavcodec/h264_refs.c | 2 +->>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>>> index eaf965e43d..5645a203a7 100644>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -718,6 +718,7 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>>>> case MMCO_RESET:>>>>>>>>>>>>> + default:>>>>>>>>>>>>> while (h->short_ref_count) {>>>>>>>>>>>>> remove_short(h, h->short_ref[0]->frame_num, 0);>>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -730,7 +731,6 @@ int>>>>>>>>>>>>> ff_h264_execute_ref_pic_marking(H264Context>>>>>>>>>>>>> *h)>>>>>>>>>>>>> for (j = 0; j < MAX_DELAYED_PIC_COUNT; j++)>>>>>>>>>>>>> h->last_pocs[j] = INT_MIN;>>>>>>>>>>>>> break;>>>>>>>>>>>>> - default: assert(0);>>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>> }>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmco[i].opcode should not be invalid, its checked around the>>>>>>>>>>>> point>>>>>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>>>>>> this>>>>>>>>>>>> array is filled.>>>>>>>>>>>> unless there is something iam missing>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, you are missing big time.>>>>>>>>>>> If you think by "checked" about those nice asserts they are not>>>>>>>>>>> enabled>>>>>>>>>>> at>>>>>>>>>>> all.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is check for invalid opcode, but stored invalid opcode is not>>>>>>>>>> changed.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Theres no question that we end with a invalid value in the struct,>>>>>>>>> but>>>>>>>>> that>>>>>>>>> is not intended to be in there. You can see that this is not>>>>>>>>> intended>>>>>>>>> by>>>>>>>>> simply looking at the variable that holds the number of entries, it>>>>>>>>> is>>>>>>>>> not written at all in this case.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So for example if this code stores 5 correct looking mmcos and the>>>>>>>>> 6th>>>>>>>>> is>>>>>>>>> invalid, 6 are in the array but the number of entries is just left>>>>>>>>> where>>>>>>>>> it>>>>>>>>> was, that could be maybe 3 or 8 or 1. Just "defaulting out" the>>>>>>>>> invalid>>>>>>>>> value>>>>>>>>> later doesnt feel ideal.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, mmco state is left in inconsistent state, and my patch fix it.>>>>>>>> As>>>>>>>> you>>>>>>>> provided nothing valuable to consider as alternative I will apply it.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about converting any invalid mmco opcode to mmco reset and>>>>>>> updating mmco size too?>>>>>>> Currently mmco size is left in previous state.>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't invent a new RESET (= 5) operation - that type is special and its>>>>>> presence implies other constraints which we probably don't want to>>>>>> think>>>>>> about here (around frame_num in particular).>>>>>>>>>>>> I think END / truncating the list would be best option?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, that would still put it into bad state. With your approach decoder>>>>> does>>>>> not recover from artifacts. Try sample from bug report #7374.>>>>>>>> Adding a spurious reset here throws away all previous reference frames,>>>> which will break the stream where it wouldn't otherwise be if the>>>> corrupted frame would have been bypassed for referencing. For example,>>>> in>>>> real-time cases with feedback a stream which has encountered errors can>>>> be>>>> recovered without an intra frame by referring to an older frame which>>>> still exists in the DPB.>>>>>> Sample: <http://ixia.jkqxz.net/~mrt/ffmpeg/no-intra.264>. The bad frame>>> here has frame_num 24, but we already hit an error before that point and>>> the>>> feedback about that makes frame_num 25 refer to LTRF 1 such that 24 is>>> never>>> used. (From a simulator rather than a real capture, because random bit>>> errors are never where you want them.)>>>>>> It doesn't exactly hit the original issue because the leftover MMCO count>>> from the previous slice is not large enough. With:>>>>>> diff --git a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>> index 5645a203a7..977b4ed12f 100644>>> --- a/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>> +++ b/libavcodec/h264_refs.c>>> @@ -875,6 +875,7 @@ int ff_h264_decode_ref_pic_marking(H264SliceContext>>> *sl,>>> GetBitContext *gb,>>> av_log(logctx, AV_LOG_ERROR,>>> "illegal memory management control operation>>> %d\n",>>> opcode);>>> + sl->nb_mmco = i + 1;>>> return -1;>>> }>>> if (opcode == MMCO_END)>>>>>> to make sure the MMCO count is written with a high enough value it does.>>> The decoder then loses sync after the inserted reset when that is present>>> and so all frames are wrong, while without the reset sync is maintained>>> and>>> all errors are fixed within a few round trips.>>>> Your change doesn't fix the issue in question...> > sl->nb_mmco cant be set to i + 1, as that would still pass invalid value later,> you probably meant to set it to i.
I think I wasn't clear there - the patch above ensures that the sample always hits the original error case (with the fake assert). It doesn't fix anything; indeed, it will make bad cases worse.
I would be happy with your suggested answer of setting nb_mmco to i in the error paths out of ff_h264_decode_ref_pic_marking (and replacing the fake assert with a real assert, since with that change it really shouldn't be able to happen).
Thanks,
- Mark